One Percent (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

hlen5 -> One Percent (4/9/2011 4:58:33 PM)

An Interesting article posted by proxy.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105



rulemylife -> RE: One Percent (4/9/2011 10:53:02 PM)

I think we need to re-define the meaning of one-percenter.

Images for one percenter 



GreedyTop -> RE: One Percent (4/9/2011 11:06:29 PM)

excellent article, Hlen (yes, I know where ya got it...lol)



tweakabelle -> RE: One Percent (4/9/2011 11:24:03 PM)

quote:

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
"Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being.
[.....]
Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business." Joseph E Stiglitz
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=2


Great article ... thanks for the link hlen5.

The same process - the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer - is underway here too. Taken with the threads outlining massive tax evasion by the big corporations it presents a frightening picture doesn't it? Trickle down has morphed into gush up.

Stiglitz is correct I feel to point out that this avarice and megalomania is ultimately self defeating. That's what history tells us. Sadly when things get to that point, the process of correction isn't pretty. It's chaotic, violent, ugly and indiscriminate. Is the future we want?

It can all be avoided with a little kindness compassion and foresight. What's so difficult about that?



hlen5 -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 12:12:07 AM)

dcnovice mentioned it on another thread.



Termyn8or -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 3:34:56 AM)

Hlen, I respect you but I found no reason to read the link, although I did scan it.

Did you know that about 25 years ago they were saying the same thing ? They also said that when the discrepancy between richest and poorest in a country became X amount that revolution was inevitable. Do you remember that they prediced, 25 years ago that a revolution would've already happened in this country approximately ten years ago ?

I believe that they were right when it came to history, because back then the strength of a nation was in the hands of the People, literally. Now it is not and government is so powerful that we cannot exercise our right, and DUTY to alter or abolish this govwernment.

Understand ?

T^T



Aneirin -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 4:34:20 AM)

But isn't THE UNITED STATES a corporation anyway, following on from the act of 1871, that being the top 1%, the elite benefit whilst the rest decline ?

Or is that just another conspiracy theory in amongst a sea of conspiracy theories ?



Edwynn -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 4:36:53 AM)




Being able to impose whatever piss ant laws against the populace does not take much power.


A truly powerful government would not have its tax laws and regulations written for it by corporations.


A truly powerful government would not be sending these same corporations billions after billions of dollars.








Termyn8or -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 4:49:40 AM)

"A truly powerful government would not be sending these same corporations billions after billions of dollars."

Now that you mention it........

T^T



Edwynn -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 4:53:42 AM)



I understood what you meant the first time, though. Defined in the "on paper" terms, this is certainly a very powerful government.

But it keeps getting fuzzier from year to year exactly what is government and what is corporation.



Others can do some searches on the Monsanto and Michael Taylor story, as just one of many episodes that cause me confusion as to exactly what 'government' is in real terms.










Termyn8or -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 4:57:12 AM)

Can you say "hostile takeover" ?

Tookem a couple hundred years but the job is done.

T^T



Termyn8or -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 4:59:11 AM)

"But isn't THE UNITED STATES a corporation anyway"

HUSH !

T^T



hlen5 -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 6:14:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Hlen, I respect you but I found no reason to read the link, although I did scan it.



Thank you![:)]



outhere69 -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 6:21:39 AM)

There's another article similar to this, discussing executive pay vs. stock performance here.  The article's crammed with information on Mr Meyer's analysis of these corporations and the fund he manages, but here's a short excerpt:

"His interest in executive pay has led Mr. Meyer to a raft of international companies whose pay and other corporate governance practices are, in his view, more respectful of shareholders than those of similar companies in the United States. He cites as good stewards Statoil, the Norwegian energy company; Telefónica, the Spanish telecommunications concern; CPFL Energia, a Brazilian electricity distributor; and Southern Copper of Phoenix, a mining company with operations in Peru and Mexico. These and other companies he favors have performed well, while paying relatively modest amounts to executives, he says. Mr. Meyer’s favorite pay-and-performance comparison pits Statoil against ExxonMobil. Statoil, which is two-thirds owned by the Norwegian government, pays its top executives a small fraction of what ExxonMobil pays its leaders. But Statoil’s share price has outperformed Exxon’s since the Norwegian company went public in October 2001. Through March, its stock climbed 22.3 percent a year, on average, Mr. Meyer notes. During the same period, Exxon’s shares rose an average of 11.4 percent annually, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index returned 1.67 percent, annualized.


According to regulatory filings, Statoil paid Helge Lund, its chief executive, 11.5 million Norwegian krone in 2010 (roughly $1.8 million at the exchange rate last year). There were no stock options in the mix, but Mr. Lund was required to use part of his cash pay to buy shares in the company and to hold onto them for at least three years.


By comparison, Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, received $21.7 million in salary, bonus and stock awards in 2009, the most recent pay figures available from the company. Mr. Tillerson’s pay is more than double the combined $8.3 million that Statoil paid its nine top executives in 2010."



rulemylife -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 10:41:31 AM)

I've posted this before on here, it's a little long but an interesting read.

Even if you don't want to read the whole thing take a look at the charts and graphs.  They pretty much sum up the article.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power



hlen5 -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 10:45:40 AM)

outhere69,

Thanks so much for that article!!



pahunkboy -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 1:30:49 PM)

I seen this a week ago.   I figured everyone here KNEW that already.

Tho I am glad to see there is interest.



Fellow -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 3:45:47 PM)

The article seems to suggest super-rich should do something to reverse the situation (wealth accumulating at the top). Ralf Nader recently published a book "Only Super-Rich Can Save Us". I have not read it, but the cover points to the same idea. It is utopia, of course. America's problem is the situation has developed very fast within one generation.  Also, a general awareness and discontent is not a good indicator for stability. The Third World countries have a similar situation for centuries.  1% is about 3 million Americans. Having so many Kings should make you proud. There is very little you can do about it (except violent uprising with uncertain outcome). Electoral politics "change" as an  illusion is well-proven.  I suggest for most people to adapt very modest and low expense lifestyle. The major problem with inequality is the psychological stress it causes.  People want to succeed financially, but the rigged game is a barrier very few can cross.  I know some recent immigrants from Asia who raise 3 child family on 2000 dollars a month income and feel perfectly happy. The fact that most of their neighbors make five time this much does not bother them at all. The most important idea is to re-build a community (as opposed to: get rich and screw everybody else).



eihwaz -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 7:32:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances, Citigroup Global Markets, 16 Oct 2005
  • The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy. Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.
  • Equity risk premium embedded in “global imbalances” are unwarranted. In plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc. This imbalance in inequality expresses itself in the standard scary “ global imbalances”. We worry less.
  • There is no “average consumer” in a Plutonomy. Consensus analyses focusing on the “average” consumer are flawed from the start.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer, Citigroup Global Markets, 5 Mar 2006
  • The latest Survey of Consumer Finances for 2004 has been released by the Federal Reserve.  It shows the rich continue to account for a disproportionately large share of income and wealth in the US economy:  the richest 10% of Americans account for 43% of income and 57% of net worth.  The net worth to income ratio for the richest 10% of Americans increased from 7.4x in 2001 to 8.4x in the 2004 survey.  The rich are in great shape, financially.
  • We think this income and wealth inequality (plutonomy) helps explain many of the conundrums that vex equity investors, such as why high oil prices haven't seriously dented growth, or why "global imbalances" are growing along with the equity bull market.  Implication 1: Worry less about conundrums.
  • We think the rich are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years.  Implication 2: we like companies that sell to or service the rich...



heartcream -> RE: One Percent (4/10/2011 7:40:06 PM)

I would like to see this film. I did see this man interviewed. Very, very interesting.

Johnson & Johnson Heir Makes Film on Income Gap



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125